Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/16/1999 01:36 PM Senate L&C
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE February 16, 1999 1:36 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman Senator Tim Kelly, Vice Chairman Senator Dave Donley Senator Lyman Hoffman MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Loren Leman COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 53 "An Act relating to a state employment preference for certain members of the Alaska National Guard." -MOVED SB 53 OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 51 "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers, manicurists, and cosmetologists; and providing for an effective date." -MOVED SB 51 OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 53 - No previous action to consider. SB 51 - No previous action to consider. WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Chris Nelson, Staff Joint Committee on Military Bases in Alaska Senator Tim Kelly State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99811-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 53 Mr. Bruce Gazaway, President Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association 4420 Edinburgh Dr. Anchorage, AK 99515 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 53. Mr. Bruce Gabrys, President Alaska National Guard Officers Association 10229 Baffin St. Anchorage, AK 99577 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 53. Ms. Catherine Reardon, Director Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110806 Juneau, AK 99811-0806 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 51. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-3, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. and announced SB 53 to be up for consideration. SB 53-EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD SENATOR KELLY, sponsor, explained that this issue was brought to him by the Alaska National Guard Officers' Association and the Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association and was first introduced as legislation in 1989. It was recently raised as an issue again because the Alaska National Guard are running into problems with recruiting and retention. He noted there is a companion bill sponsored by Representative Morgan in the House. MR. CHRIS NELSON, staff for the Joint Committee on Military Bases in Alaska, stated in Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98), 429 soldiers left the Alaska National Guard. When any organization loses people in mid- career, they are losing people with institutional memory and experience, the very best people. A suggestion from the leaders of the National Guard Associations is to provide a three-point incentive on the State's civil service exam to encourage Guard members to maintain their active status. This also provides the State with the opportunity to get employees into other state service who are mature, disciplined, and team players. These people are drug-free and meet all the other requirements the military imposes on its work force. It's a win-win situation to for the Guard and the State of Alaska to have these people continue to serve in the National Guard and to seek employment with the State of Alaska and other agencies. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Mr. Nelson to explain how this would work. MR. NELSON responded that typically an airman would enlist in the Guard for a period of six years and an officer has an initial obligation of about the same thing. SB 53 waits until someone has been in eight years; at which point they have a commitment to the Guard, have been through their basic and AIT training, their branch officer basic course and advanced courses. These people will typically be E5's and E6's and O3's and O4's. This is the beginning of their most productive years for the Guard. At that point, a lot of people who enlisted in the Guard when they were 18, 19, and 20 years old, have begun families and careers, which pressures them to consider whether they have enough time for the Guard. The Guard wants them to continue being part of their family, as well, and also want to encourage them to have stable employment. One of the ways to do that is to encourage them to work for other agencies of the State. SB 53 provides a three-point bonus for those veterans. To qualify for the bonus, they must be active members of the Guard and must have served eight years. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked how much of an advantage that would be. MR. NELSON answered that it is less than the five-point bonus given to Alaskans who are combat veterans or who have been prisoners of war, but it is significant enough to make it possible for members to achieve employment. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said that veterans currently receive five points; disabled veterans and prisoners of war received 10 points. He asked if points accumulate for people who fit several different categories. MR. NELSON said, no, a person gets the highest number of points they qualify for. He added that this bill would exclusively affect people who have enlisted and served in the Guard exclusively. SENATOR DONLEY asked what the total points available on an examination are. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said they would find out. Number 147 MR. BRUCE GAZAWAY, President, Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association, summarized his position which he had also presented in a letter before the Committee. He said he was a member of the Guard for 18 years as an NCO. He sees SB 53 as a retention tool, though three points is not an overwhelming endorsement. It is more than a token, however, because it will make a National Guard member stand out and give him or her a chance to get an interview. This is an appropriate action for the State, because the Guard is a State asset. This bill encourages midlevel management and skilled technicians to stay on the job when there are lots of incentives to leave, like the increased burden that military downsizing has placed upon the average Guardsmen. MR. GAZAWAY said that our nation has become increasingly dependent on the Guard and Reserves, sending them to help out in situations like Hurricane Mitch. Too often when they come back, they have a hard time finding work. MR. BRUCE GABRYS, President, Alaska National Guard Officers Association, said he recently retired as a Lieutenant Colonel with five years of active service and 15 years in the Alaska Army National Guard. He said he sent a letter recently to Senator Kelly supporting SB 53. Most jobs for state application generally have a possible score of 100 points. A preference of three points is less than what is given to veterans, but those are veterans that served during a period of war, not necessarily those participating in combat. He explained that the National Guard role is much different now than in years past. The active Army cannot make any major deployment without getting some support from the National Guard where air craft, vehicle mechanics, and material handlers are now located. The Guardsmen will go individually or as a unit, but it many cases, it's a voluntary call-up. Because of that, they don't share some of the same benefits they would get under full mobilization. MR. GABRYS said the three points is not intended to compete with the service that's provided by those who did perform during a period of war or were a POW or had a service related disability. That three points recognizes the service they provided to both the State and the nation. The National Guard in Alaska is being called upon more and more frequently to support our natural disasters in the State. He clarified that the three point preference does not force the selecting supervisor to hire that particular Guard or veteran, but only assists the applicant with preference points in ranking high enough to get an interview. The selecting supervisor can then select from the top five categories. Assuming 100 is the maximum number of points, a disabled veteran would have 110 which would be the top category and it would work down from there. If a disabled vet scored 90 on the test, he would have a score of 100. Number 208 SENATOR KELLY asked if under the definition of a federal veteran, a person would have to serve at specific times, for instance WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, or Desert Storm, in order to be qualified as a veteran. MR. GABRYS answered he thought that was correct and he thought the State's definition would be a period of service before 1976, the Vietnam era. SENATOR KELLY responded that there are almost no veterans left from WWII and Korea that are in the labor market. SENATOR DONLEY said he didn't see these dates in the statute. SENATOR KELLY said it was somewhere else and he was surprised that Desert Storm isn't included. MR. GABRYS said the 1976 date was Vietnam and he thought the window should have been opened again for Desert Storm. SENATOR KELLY commented that the youngest guys, if they went to Vietnam, would be about 43 now and there aren't as many preferences in play now as there were 20 years ago. SENATOR DONLEY asked to find where the dates are defined. SENATOR KELLY said they would find it. MR. GAZAWAY said he thought the dates were defined in federal legislation and he thought Desert Storm was covered. The definition allows for people who served in a direct capacity. SENATOR DONELY said he wanted to see where the State rule referred to the federal rule. CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced a recess at 1:55 p.m. to allow for a fire alarm. He called the meeting back to order at 2:10 p.m. and noted that the same quorum was present. He stated that Senator Donley's question had been answered. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass SB 53 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SB 51-LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 51 to be up for consideration SENATOR KELLY said the bill was introduced at the request of the Board of Cosmetologists. The only controversy within the bill appeared to be the licensing of manicurists and what training they require. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that the sponsor of SB 51 was actually the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee. MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, said her staff provides the staff support to the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. She agreed that the primary issue in SB 51 is the licensing of manicurists. Less controversial items include changing the term "cosmetologist" to "aesthetician" throughout the statute; this is why the bill is so long. This is a request of the Board which says that the term "aesthetician" is much more common in other parts of the country to mean skin care which is what cosmetologists are in our statute. Using the term "cosmetologist" has been confusing to people who are coming in from other states, leading them to think that's a hairdresser license and applying for the wrong kind of license. SB 51 has no other impacts on her division or fiscal impacts. The next item is the creation of a temporary license, which is different from a temporary permit. The temporary license allows people to continue to practice between the period that they complete their training and passing the exam. Depending on what town you are in, there could be lag-time before the exam is offered. This provision allows the temporary licensee to operate under the direct supervision of another licensed person and was also proposed by the Board. MS. REARDON said that in the past she has opposed licensing manicurists, but the Board has traditionally supported licensing manicurists. The Board is meeting in March and could comment on the specific bill. Her Division's perspective of SB 51 is that training required for a manicurist's license is carefully restricted in the title and content of the bill, to be very specific that it cannot exceed 12 hours of training and in health, safety, and hygiene. She personally feels that is preferable to previous proposals, because in prior years her concern was that there were a lot of manicurists practicing right now without licensure and potentially there would be a very expensive training regimen set up where people would have to close their shop and go to Anchorage for a couple of months, and spend a couple thousand dollars to get a license. That might have a lot of real negative consequences for small business people. She wasn't sure that the public health and safety risk of incompetent manicuring was sufficient to be worth that problem for business people. Since the bill is directed toward health and safety, primarily concerns about infections resulting from fake nails that are being put on permanently. The Board members tell her that it possible to get infections because the nail is covered for so long. If that is the reason for government involvement in regulation of this profession, it is appropriate that the training focus on the safety issues. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if she supported the bill. MS. REARDON answered that she thought the Department would be neutral on this bill, but she hadn't shown it to the Commissioner for the official position. The Board has not seen this bill, but she anticipates that they would support it. Number 410 SENATOR KELLY asked if there was a section that said if you're an instructor, you no longer have to get each individual certificates and pay a whole new permit fee. MS. REARDON replied that is the fourth aspect of this bill on page 5, line 9 of the draft CS. It says a person licensed as an instructor is considered to be licensed as a practitioner, and, therefore, they don't have to buy both the instructor license and the practitioners license. The Department supports this provision. She added that there would be a fiscal note relating to the licensing of manicurists; however, since the draft says there won't be a state administered examination, that would decrease her last year's fiscal note. She would not collect the $55 fee to hire a proctor to give the exam. SENATOR DONLEY said that some states allow self-testing to avoid the problem of the state offering the test only on certain dates. He asked if the Board has a position on that. MS. REARDON said she didn't know for sure, but would ask them. From the Division perspective, it doesn't seem to be very disturbing. In fact, it might be a good idea. She said a concern might be if the exam givers are giving it to their own students. She said she would find out and noted that taking the exam out of the state's hands would also take out of the State's budget. Number 450 SENATOR KELLY moved to adopt the CS to CSSB 51(L&C). There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR DONLEY asked if there were any concerns about exploring the self testing aspect. SENATOR KELLY said he didn't understand how it would fit in this bill. SENATOR DONLEY explained that offering an exam in the private sector would allow a person to take it right away instead of having to wait two or three months. SENATOR KELLY said he thought that was a different place than where the bill started out. He doubted that anyone would fail the exam; if they would pay the $3,000 - $4,000 to take the course, he thought they would pass the exam whether they showed up or not. SENATOR DONLEY said in a way it related to the intermediate license, since the State only offers the exam at certain times. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said he thought it sounded more efficient to be able to take the test when you are done with the course rather than to have to schedule another trip out of town to take the test. SENATOR KELLY suggested getting an opinion from the Board while the bill moves to Finance. MS. REARDON agreed to poll the Board and let the committee know their position as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that Ms. Janice Adair, Director, Division of Environmental Health, had been available to testify in Anchorage, but had to leave because of illness. MS. REARDON explained that the bill requires the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to inspect a shop when it first opens. When a business changes hands, DEC is no longer able to reinspect. Where municipalities are involved, more frequent health inspections are occurring. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted the DEC fiscal note of $3,800 and which says the Department does not currently inspect facilities covered by this legislation, nor are they proposing to start an inspection program. Regulations are self-implementing and, time permitting, they would respond to complaints. However, they present a relatively low public health risk. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSSB 51(L&C) from committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN MACKIE adjourned the meeting at 2:28 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|